I think a proactive background check service could be useful in some cases
but of course it'd have to be optional and configurable to allow operators
to tune the trade-off between the effort required to check all images
versus the risk of hitting a rogue file.
Letting the backend report health bac
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Nikhil Komawar
wrote:
> Firstly, I'd like to mention that Glance is built-in (and if deployed
> correctly) is self-resilient in ensuring that you do NOT need an audit
> of such files. In fact, if any operator (particularly large scale
> operator) ne
Hey Sergio,
Glad to know that you're not having any feature related issues (to me
this is a good sign). Based on your answers, it makes sense to require a
reliability solution for backend data (or some sort of health monitoring
for the user data).
So, I wonder what your thoughts are for such an
Hi Nikhil,
Thanks so much for you response.
1) No, this is a private cloud.
2) Glance v1 (this problem has manifested itself in one of our oldest
deployments, which is running Icehouse).
3) No, location is not exposed.
4) Glance is setup with the filesystem backend drive, using a Gluster
volume m
Hi Sergio,
Thanks for reaching out. And this is an excellent question.
Firstly, I'd like to mention that Glance is built-in (and if deployed
correctly) is self-resilient in ensuring that you do NOT need an audit
of such files. In fact, if any operator (particularly large scale
operator) needs su
